Today my wife got in a Facebook argument with a friend who
had posted this picture on her profile:
The thing that bothers me most about this is how easy it is
to take at face value and accept what it says. In reality president Obama didn’t
sign a single executive order regarding gun control. I know that a lot of news
outlets reported that he did, but they were wrong. This
article points out that there were 0 executive orders, 3 memorandums, and
the rest were only letters or requests. Even if all those were executive orders,
which of them do gun advocates actually disagree with? There’s a full list here,
take a look and let me know which action equates president Obama with Hitler.
Scrolling past the picture the argument quickly digressed
into the same extremes that the gun argument always does. My wife actually took
the one extreme end saying that she was “all for revoking the ‘right to bear
arms’” (I actually disagree completely on that point, but that’s what was said)
which led to those on the other side of the argument to make their extreme case
as well. I think that this extreme back and forth is the worst thing possible
for the gun debate. I believe that there needs to be a discussion about guns,
but the extremism prevents finding any common ground that everyone can get
behind. The sad thing is that there is a lot of common ground; polls suggest
that over 90% of Americans agree that background checks should be mandatory for
gun ownership (including closing gun show loopholes). There is also widespread
support for preventing felons and people with mental illnesses from obtaining
guns. Over 70% believe that guns should be registered, and between 50-60% agree
that semi-automatics should be banned along with high capacity clips. This
article from the Washington post has more information on these polls along
with some other interesting gun facts about guns, gun control, and public
opinion.
One thing that comes up fairly regularly when someone is
trying to shut down the debate is the argument that there are over 20,000 laws
regarding guns on the books already and we should just enforce them. CNN
reported on a study which counted gun laws at closer to 300. The
study itself states that it is unclear where this 20,000 number came from;
but it has become so widely stated and used that nobody questions it. Even if
that number were true, does that somehow suggest that guns are properly
regulated? I would say that this suggests an overly complicated set of laws
that could use some serious reform in order to simplify them. Wouldn’t a set of
laws that are less complicated mean less expertise needed to comply, and
therefore reduce cost of enforcing them? The other issue with this argument is
the fact that the ATF is overburdened, understaffed, and lacks authority necessary
to enforce the laws that are on the books. John
Stewart pointed this out on his January 16th show (Canadian viewers
can see that episode here).
Another argument that was used in this case was the old “cars
kill more people than guns, should we ban all cars?” This one drives me nuts
for two reasons; first because the argument implies that there’s any threat
that guns will actually be banned. The
death star petition was more likely to become a reality than any full on
gun ban (by the way, if you haven’t read the response to the death star
petition, it’s really funny). The other reason I can’t stand this argument is
that it is comparing apples to oranges. A car is designed for transportation
and with proper use and care a car will not hurt anybody. On the other hand a
gun is designed to kill. Its proper use results in death. That is not an
unfortunate side effect of using a gun; it is the primary purpose. Aside from
that unfortunate fact, I think that it is interesting that so many gun
advocates use that argument because many of the gun control laws that this argument
is used against are essentially things that we already do to regulate cars. In
order to legally operate a vehicle you are required to have a license to show
that you are trained to operate it, every vehicle needs to be registered, and
every car owner needs to purchase liability insurance in case they have an
accident that causes damage or injury. This is just a small example of the
regulations in place to protect both car owners and those that may be impacted
by the actions of car owners. Does it make sense that it should take less time
and training to own and operate a military style semi-automatic weapon
specifically made to kill people than it does to buy a Prius? I’d say that
would be common sense gun control, but very few politicians in the US are even
talking about going that far.
I am not in favor of a gun ban; I believe that law abiding citizens
should be allowed to own firearms but I think that owning a gun should require
at least the same level of personal responsibility as owning a vehicle.
